Tuesday, June 25, 2013

'Bioethicist': Parents Should Be Held Liabel For The Deaths 'Caused' by Unvaccinated Children by Alan Phillips, J.D.

'Bioethicist': Parents Should Be Held Liabel For The Deaths 'Caused' by
Unvaccinated Children
by Alan Phillips, J.D.

Green Med Info, 24 June 2013

Bioethicist Art Caplan, Ph.D. of New York University has argued that parents
of unvaccinated children should be held liable for illness or death allegedly
caused by their unvaccinated children.[1] This article rebuts Caplan's position,
and explains why liability should fall, if with anyone on this issue, on him,
for the deliberate or negligent use of his academic status and authority,
supported by false information, to promote a flawed vaccine policy resulting in
avoidable vaccine injury and death.

Dr. Caplan's primary premises, for
purposes of the parental liability question, are essentially that: 1)
Unvaccinated children put others at risk, 2) Unvaccinated children, as such,
cause actual harm to others, and 3) Non-vaccinating parents know these first two
premises, and should, therefore, be held liable for the harm caused by their
failure to get their children vaccinated.

I. The Real Ethical Issue

Dr. Caplan's concern puts
the cart before the horse. He has missed the target, a far more fundamental
ethical question underlying his position, by mistakenly assuming that parents
who refuse vaccines for their children are necessarily negligent for doing so.
But the matter is not nearly so simple. Given the medically and legally
established fact that vaccines cause permanent disability and death,[2] no
parent can be reasonably categorized as "negligent" for choosing not to
vaccinate their child. The real ethical question, then, is not whether or not
parents should be held liable for their choice not to vaccinate, but instead,
whether or not parents should be required to place their children at risk of
vaccine injury or death in the first place. This seriousness of this question is
underscored by the fact that the risk for any individual child is
indeterminable, and the presumed benefit to the vaccinated child or others is
only hypothetical--by definition, because vaccines are a treatment given to a
healthy person to protect against a future hypothetical exposure to disease; and
additionally because exposure to a disease doesn't necessarily mean that the
exposed child will become ill or spread a disease. Put more generally, the more
pertinent ethical question here is:

Who, if anyone, should
risk their life for the sake of a hypothetical future benefit to others; and
when and for whom, if ever, should doing so be
mandatory?

Assuming that vaccines work (a flawed
assumption, since 90-95% of infectious disease decline preceded vaccines, some
vaccines temporarily reversed preexisting declines, and outbreaks routinely
occur in highly vaccinated populations[3]), this more fundamental ethical
question concerning vaccine injury and death is, at best with regard to Dr. C's
parent liability issue, one on which reasonable people could disagree. On that
basis alone, Dr. Caplan's parent liability issue crumbles to dust. But we've
only scratched the surface. Since 90% or more of vaccine adverse events are
never even reported, according to the CDC, FDA and AAPS--more than 99% according
to former FDA Commissioner David Kessler[4], we have no idea what the true scope
of vaccine injury and death really is. Clearly, then, there's no objective basis
for mandating vaccines at all (let alone holding anyone liable for not
vaccinating), because no one can tell you if they provide a net benefit to
society, let alone if they are safe for *your* child in particular. So again,
for this reason, we don't even reach Dr. Caplan's parental liability
concern.

Add to this the documented corruption in the pharmaceutical
industry and government health agencies, and Dr. Caplan's issue just fades
further into oblivion. For example, in 2011, the non-profit corporation
Coalition for Mercury-Free Drugs obtained information through the Freedom of
Information Act revealing that the CDC deliberately withheld data showing that
autism rates in Danish children dropped when mercury was removed from vaccines,
and then fraudulently promoted a study falsely claiming that vaccines do not
cause autism.[5] Also in 2011, Dr. Poul Thorsen, a researcher hired by the CDC
to organize studies refuting the vaccine-autism connection, was indicted on 13
counts of fraud with the CDC and 9 counts of money-laundering, bringing into
question all of his work with the CDC (and Dr. Thorson was one of the authors on
the fraudulent vaccine-autism study). In 2008, Dr. Marcia Angell of Harvard
Medical School, after serving as editor of the New England Journal of Medicine
for two decades, announced: "It is simply no longer possible to believe much of
the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted
physicians or authoritative medical guidelines."[6] Finally, In 2012 and 2009,
Glaxo and Pfiser got $billion *criminal* fines respectively; criminal and civil
fines in the $100's of millions are common in the pharmaceutical industry. So,
the vaccine controversy cannot be reduced to the simplistic parental liability
issue Dr. Caplan asserts. Life and quality of life should never be bargained
away via this utilitarian formula: "Risk your life now so that someone else
*may* benefit in the future," but that's exactly what we are doing with vaccine
mandates--and to innocent newborns and other children. In the real world, where
fake facts are invented and real facts suppressed to serve private and political
agendas, and where this is documented in both industry and government, our
governments should never be permitted to impose a life-threatening therapy on
anyone. (I do not mean to suggest that everyone in industry and government is
corrupt; quite the contrary, I believe very few people are, they just happen to
be concentrated in key decision-making positions of industry and
government.)

Look - there's no 100% safe option. Life is, by definition,
unpredictable. Both vaccines and infectious diseases can injure and kill. But in
the absence of adequate data to enable a credible comparison, Dr. Caplan lacks a
legitimate basis for raising the question about parental liability altogether.
But even if vaccines were proven to provide a net benefit, the ethical question
about whether or not any given parent should be required to risk sacrificing
their child for the benefit of the community remains valid. Many of us would,
given the opportunity and complete information, would opt to take reasonable
steps to protect others, and those steps could include vaccinating. That's fine,
if it's an informed choice. But just as clearly, others would refuse. Both are
ethically defensible positions.

The only civilized response to the
broader vaccination question, given the reality of vaccine injury and death, and
the absence of data on that as well, is to allow all parents to make informed
choices based on what they believe is best for their child. If government is to
be involved at all outside of emergencies, it should conduct independent
research to bring further clarity to the issue. For example, a current bill
pending before Congress now would require a study comparing autism rates in
vaccinated and non-vaccinated populations.[7] The only reason such research
hasn't occurred to date is, of course, is the risk it poses to the $ billions in
pharmaceutical profits from vaccines (predicted to increase by 12% annually for
the next several years [8]), and the further and additional erosion of
pharmaceutical profits that would come from the precipitous drop in childhood
chronic diseases as vaccination rates plummeted once the findings in such
studies were publicly released. But even if such data ultimately favored
vaccines, it would still not justify mandating that every child risk his or her
life for a presumed benefit to others, especially when the individual risk is
indeterminable and the benefits hypothetical. Finally, Dr. Caplan's suggestion
of parental liability looks absurd when you consider the documented alternatives
to immunization that are more effective, a fraction of the cost of vaccines, and
that don't pose a risk of disability or death. [9] Why should anyone ever be
penalized for doing something that is better than vaccines, in place of
vaccines? The answer is that the alternatives are not profitable for the
pharmaceutical industry, and therefore, awareness of them is actively
suppressed; and that currently, these are not legal alternatives to mandatory
vaccines.

To read the entire article and have access to many references, please click on the link below:GreenMedInfo

Note: The Mercenary Scientists on Pharms payroll must be getting desperate to stoop to such a low level.

About Me

An American living in Sweden.
**PRIVACY NOTICE:
Warning--any person and/or institution and/or Agent and/or Agency of any governmental structure including but not limited to ALL Governments or private mediums or corporations or individuals also using or monitoring/using this website or any of its associated websites, you do NOT have my permission to utilize any of my profile information nor any of the content contained herein including, but not limited to my photos, and/ or the comments made about my photo's or any other "picture" art posted on my profile. You are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing, disseminating, or taking any other action against me with regard to this profile and the contents herein. The foregoing prohibitions also apply to your employee(s), agent(s), student(s) or any personnel under your direction or control. The contents of this profile are private and legally privileged and confidential information, and the violation of my personal privacy is punishable by law and will be strictly enforced.